Posts by Kalosyni

I happened upon this page: "What would make the best society?", which has a number of entries, and found this to be a rational answer, and it ends on an "Epicurean" note.

Quote

What would make the best society? An aggregate of people living together in a harmonious community with common values and customs. But although this appears an acceptable definition, harmony is a difficult if not impossible state to achieve in society, and the maintenance of harmony invariably impedes the achievement of individual ideals. So this definition is nothing more than an unachievable ideal.

Philosophy has long been a defender of this impossible ideal, yet it seems that many are still confused by the nature of the notion: an ideal may be desirable but wholly unobtainable, especially if it concerns social matters. Plato reported such an unreachable ideal in the Republic, as did More and Bacon; and it is disparaging to their works if one thinks they were so na ïve as to believe that what they wrote could be actualised. Yet people still criticise their work on just this basis.

Maybe a poet could better portray the way things are. D.H. Lawrence says of love: “We have pushed a process into a goal.” Love is an ideal we all wish to acquire; but as Lawrence says, it’s a process not a goal, and to believe it is something to acquire is actually a fallacy. We do not fall in love to reach something and then stop: love is ongoing. So too must we understand social improvement as a process, for if we begin to view the ideal society as a thing we can create, then we’re accepting that we’ll reach a point at which we can go no further, no longer improve. Instead then, we must formulate an ideal and work towards it, knowing that its perfect implementation is unattainable. At least we will be moving in the right direction.

With all this in mind, I offer up the suggestion that we work towards a society where due to advances in technology no one works any more – allowing us to sit around discussing philosophy, eating fine food and drinking fine wine!

Christopher Burr, Southbourne, Dorset

Aristotle...

Quote

While Epicurus's atomism contained elements that were closer to the modern scientific worldview, Aristotle's work had a more powerful and sustained direct influence on the history of science. Indeed, the Scientific Revolution can be seen as both a continuation of and a reaction against the Aristotelian tradition, demonstrating just how pervasive and central his ideas were to the scientific discourse of the time.

(Source: Google search)

Here is an interesting article - "Why does Francis Bacon Criticise Aristotle in the Novum Organum?"

Why does Francis Bacon Criticise Aristotle in the Novum Organum?

During the Renaissance, Aristotle’s methods and concepts had gained many followers, which lead to virtually all of the universities founded…

medium.com

Here at this link is a diagram on inductive and deductive reasoning in the scientific method:

File:Inductive and deductive reasoning in the scientific method.png - Wikimedia Commons

commons.wikimedia.org

Quote

While science is primarily based on deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning does have its place. Observations of nature are specific in nature. As observations of a specific phenomenon amass, a researcher begins to emerge with a general understanding of that phenomenon (inductive inference), which in turn results in the development of specific hypotheses. Once hypotheses are established, experimentation produces results to reject false hypotheses and support unfalsified hypotheses. As a collection of unfalsified hypotheses get researchers closer and closer to 'the truth', inductive reasoning can be used to develop a scientific theory.

I'd like to compare the tools of the Epicurean canon with the tools of the modern scientific method. Firstly, it is important to understand what the scientific method is.

Here is a good article excerpt on the scientific method (source link posted below):

Quote

Science is an enormously successful human enterprise. The study of scientific method is the attempt to discern the activities by which that success is achieved. Among the activities often identified as characteristic of science are systematic observation and experimentation, inductive and deductive reasoning, and the formation and testing of hypotheses and theories. How these are carried out in detail can vary greatly, but characteristics like these have been looked to as a way of demarcating scientific activity from non-science, where only enterprises which employ some canonical form of scientific method or methods should be considered science (see also the entry on science and pseudo-science). Others have questioned whether there is anything like a fixed toolkit of methods which is common across science and only science. Some reject privileging one view of method as part of rejecting broader views about the nature of science, such as naturalism (Dupré 2004); some reject any restriction in principle (pluralism).

Scientific method should be distinguished from the aims and products of science, such as knowledge, predictions, or control. Methods are the means by which those goals are achieved. Scientific method should also be distinguished from meta-methodology, which includes the values and justifications behind a particular characterization of scientific method (i.e., a methodology) — values such as objectivity, reproducibility, simplicity, or past successes. Methodological rules are proposed to govern method and it is a meta-methodological question whether methods obeying those rules satisfy given values. Finally, method is distinct, to some degree, from the detailed and contextual practices through which methods are implemented. The latter might range over: specific laboratory techniques; mathematical formalisms or other specialized languages used in descriptions and reasoning; technological or other material means; ways of communicating and sharing results, whether with other scientists or with the public at large; or the conventions, habits, enforced customs, and institutional controls over how and what science is carried out.

While it is important to recognize these distinctions, their boundaries are fuzzy. Hence, accounts of method cannot be entirely divorced from their methodological and meta-methodological motivations or justifications, Moreover, each aspect plays a crucial role in identifying methods. Disputes about method have therefore played out at the detail, rule, and meta-rule levels. Changes in beliefs about the certainty or fallibility of scientific knowledge, for instance (which is a meta-methodological consideration of what we can hope for methods to deliver), have meant different emphases on deductive and inductive reasoning, or on the relative importance attached to reasoning over observation (i.e., differences over particular methods.) Beliefs about the role of science in society will affect the place one gives to values in scientific method.

The issue which has shaped debates over scientific method the most in the last half century is the question of how pluralist do we need to be about method? Unificationists continue to hold out for one method essential to science; nihilism is a form of radical pluralism, which considers the effectiveness of any methodological prescription to be so context sensitive as to render it not explanatory on its own. Some middle degree of pluralism regarding the methods embodied in scientific practice seems appropriate. But the details of scientific practice vary with time and place, from institution to institution, across scientists and their subjects of investigation. How significant are the variations for understanding science and its success? How much can method be abstracted from practice? This entry describes some of the attempts to characterize scientific method or methods, as well as arguments for a more context-sensitive approach to methods embedded in actual scientific practices.

You can read the full article over at this website.

My hope for this thread is to compare and contrast... feel free to add to this thread at any time.

This thread has had a long and winding road (and haven't re-read through before typing this...and it may need to be summarized or outlined for key points that have come up).

This morning I was thinking about "The religion of De Rerum Natura", or other phrases that would hold that idea. As much as I personally prefer referring to something as a philosophy, it seems that in the current US zeitgeist, that when something is a religion it gets more respect then when it is just a philosophy...religion seems to have a "protected" status but philosophy doesn't. Also, as I become more rooted and grounded in what I believe, it becomes more important and dear to me (and especially in an internal reaction to the over-reporting and the religious fervency shown by internet media of a particular event in the news recently).

So the challenge is to come up with a name that encapsulates the Epicurean view of the nature of the universe, and focuses on the atomistic basis of understanding the world rather than the often misunderstood or misrepresented ethical aspects of the philosophy.

Some other possible phrases...the religion of Natura Materialis, the religion of Vera Natura, the religion of Mater Natura, the religion of Mater Naturalis, and there could be others that might work better... a Latin name gives it a religious feeling.

If anyone has further ideas or thoughts, please share

Edit note: Or the religion of Rerum Natura

Happy Twentieth! ...and Fall Equinox on September 22nd (Monday) at 2:19 p.m. EDT

This thread seems like a good place for placing this (even though the later posts may have drifted from the original early posts).

I found this which others may also be interested in checking out...in which Jefferson edited out everything "supernatural" and there is also an interesting letter, at the start of the book.

The Jefferson Bible

***

Edit note: I see that Don already brought up the Jefferson Bible, back in post 3.

Epicurus likely would have been familiar with the cult of Eirene (eirene = peace).

Quote

Eirene (/aɪˈriːniː/; Ancient Greek: Εἰρήνη, Eirḗnē, [ei̯ˈrɛːnɛː], lit. "Peace"),^[1] more commonly known in English as Peace, is one of the Horae, the personification and goddess of peace in Greek mythology and ancient religion. She was depicted in art as a beautiful young woman carrying a cornucopia, sceptre, and a torch or rhyton. She is usually said to be the daughter of Zeus and Themis and thus sister of Dike and Eunomia. Her Roman equivalent is the goddess Pax.

Eirene was particularly well regarded by the citizens of Athens. After a naval victory over Sparta in 375 BC, the Athenians established a cult for Peace, erecting altars to her. They held an annual state sacrifice to her after 371 BC to commemorate the Common Peace of that year and set up a votive statue in her honour in the Agora of Athens. The statue was executed in bronze by Cephisodotus the Elder, likely the father or uncle^[2] of the famous sculptor Praxiteles. It was acclaimed by the Athenians, who depicted it on vases and coins.^[3]

Although the statue is now lost, it was copied in marble by the Romans; one of the best surviving copies is in the Munich Glyptothek. It depicts the goddess carrying a child with her left arm—Plutus, the god of plenty and son of Demeter, the goddess of agriculture. Peace's missing right hand once held a sceptre. She is shown gazing maternally at Plutus, who is looking back at her trustingly. The statue is an allegory for Plenty (i.e., Plutus) prospering under the protection of Peace; it constituted a public appeal to good sense.^[3] The copy in the Glyptothek was originally in the collection of the Villa Albani in Rome but was looted and taken to France by Napoleon I. Following Napoleon's fall, the statue was bought by Ludwig I of Bavaria.^[4]

source: Wikipedia

Happy Birthday Bryan !!

An interesting book was referenced in one of the articles - Touch: The Science of Hand, Heart, and Mind, by David J. Linden.

Touch: The Science of Hand, Heart, and Mind

The New York Times bestselling author examines how our …

www.goodreads.com

Quote

The New York Times bestselling author examines how our sense of touch and emotion are interconnected.

Johns Hopkins neuroscientist and bestselling author of The Compass of Pleasure David J. Linden presents an engaging and fascinating examination of how the interface between our sense of touch and our emotional responses affects our social interactions as well as our general health and development. Accessible in its wit and clarity, Touch explores scientific advances in the understanding of touch that help explain our sense of self and our experience of the world.

From skin to nerves to brain, the organization of the body’s touch circuits powerfully influences our lives—affecting everything from consumer choice to sexual intercourse, tool use to the origins of language, chronic pain to healing. Interpersonal touch is crucial to social bonding and individual development. Linden lucidly explains how sensory and emotional context work together to distinguish between perceptions of what feels good and what feels bad. Linking biology and behavioral science, Linden offers an entertaining and enlightening answer to how we feel in every sense of the word.

*****

According to Diogenes Laertius, book X, in the list of books written by Epicurus, there is one with the title: "Of Touch" (unfortunately which is lost to us).

I did this search for consideration of the interplay between nature (natural processes of the body) , sensations of pleasure and pain, together with the inter-relationship between emotions and feelings.

I will put a list of reference articles provided by the search following the Google response.

Query: "what is the current understanding of the relationship between pleasure and pain and emotions and feelings"

Google AI Overview

Pain and pleasure are complex, interrelated phenomena with significant overlaps in their underlying brain systems and their impact on emotions and feelings. While distinct neural circuits process sensory aspects of pain, higher-level brain areas integrate these into generalized affective experiences, leading to a shared brain system for pain and pleasure that is rich in opioid receptors. These concepts are not isolated but part of a dynamic emotional system, where one can modulate the other. For example, positive emotions can diminish pain, and the relief of pain is often experienced as pleasurable.

1. Neural Overlap:

• Shared Brain Regions:

Both pain and pleasure activate overlapping brain regions, particularly those rich in opioid receptors, which are crucial for motivation and hedonic feelings.

• Sensory vs. Affective Systems:

While pain has distinct peripheral and spinal pathways, its ultimate experience is shaped by higher-level brain systems that also process pleasure.

2. Interaction and Modulation:

• Modulating Effects:

  Pleasant stimuli can reduce pain, and the relief of pain is often perceived as pleasant. Conversely, negative emotions like fear and humiliation can amplify pain, whereas positive emotions like feeling safe can diminish it.

• Anhedonia:

  A condition called anhedonia, or the inability to feel pleasure, is often associated with chronic pain, indicating a strong link between these states.

• "Numbing" Effect:

  Attempts to avoid or suppress negative emotions can lead to a general "numbing" effect, reducing the intensity of both positive and negative emotions.

3. Emotional and Motivational Significance:

• Reward-Punishment System:

Pain and pleasure can be viewed as parts of a survival-oriented reward-punishment system. The pleasure of food, for example, helps restore the body's energy balance, while pain helps with avoidance and defense.

• Motivation and Dopamine:

Dopamine, a neurotransmitter, plays a role in both pain and pain relief by signaling the importance of stimuli and promoting learning and motivation to seek relief.

4. Paradoxical Experiences:

• Simultaneous Expression: Humans sometimes express both pain and intense pleasure with the same behavior, such as screaming during extreme pleasure or joy, highlighting the interconnectedness of these emotional states.

5. Implications for Health:

• Chronic Pain Management:

Understanding the connection between pain and emotions can lead to more holistic treatments for chronic pain, which often involves addressing the associated negative emotional states.

• Bridging Disciplines:

This relationship is the subject of ongoing research, bridging fields like neuroscience, psychology, and even psychoanalysis to understand the intricate interplay of sensation, motivation, and affect.

References:

The Pleasures of Pain and the Pains of Pleasure - By Paul Bloom - Behavioral Scientist

In his new book, Paul Bloom pushes us to reflect on the complexity of our emotional reactions. Why do we cry on our worst days and our best?

behavioralscientist.org

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2310433121

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/02/18/387211563/pain-really-is-all-in-your-head-emotion-controls-intensity

Emotional aspects of chronic pain isolated in brain circuitry | WashU Medicine

Animal study could help ID new treatment targets for negative emotions linked to pain

medicine.washu.edu

Emotional and Motivational Pain Processing: Current State of Knowledge and Perspectives in Translational Research - PMC

The Experience of Pleasure: A Perspective Between Neuroscience and Psychoanalysis - PMC

Pain and pleasure - Wikipedia

https://academic.oup.com/book/6064/chapter-abstract/149506055?redirectedFrom=fulltext

The Power of Feeling our Feelings: a story of joy and pain — Integrative Psychotherapy Mental Health Blog

Are you looking for more joy in your life, but you just feel numb? There is hope for you to feel fully again, darling.

integrativepsych.co

Quote from DaveT

So, who was Cicero trying to convert to his Platonic belief that eternal virtues are the highest good?

Was he succeeding in his goal? And is that the reason he kept at it, sensing that he was winning the game?

From an article regarding virtues this, on Plato vs. Aristotle.

Quote

Even though there were different Greek philosophers following the same moral view of virtue ethics, their interpretation was slightly different. For example, Plato and Aristotle treated virtues differently. Plato viewed virtue as an end to be sought for, where relations such as friendship could be a means. Aristotle, on the other hand, saw virtue as a means for happiness that safeguarded human relations.

Epicurus' stance seems to me to be built upon Aristotle's ideas, but yet adding in that "pleasure" is beneficial, and the ultimate end.

Philodemus wrote on virtues and vices:

Quote

Philodemus of Gadara wrote extensively about virtues and vices, with surviving fragments from works like On Vices and On Flattery detailing various vices such as arrogance, envy, greed, flattery, and anger, and contrasting them with their opposite virtues. He discussed how vices stem from false beliefs and habits while virtues arise from true beliefs and connection to Epicurean pleasures. Philodemus also explored the therapeutic methods for dealing with vices, such as the "therapy of vice," and the interconnectedness of vices and emotions within the soul.

Source: Google search, AI summary

Here is a scholarly article by Tsouna:

https://ancphil.lsa.umich.edu/-/downloads/osap/21-Tsouna.pdf

I find it interesting the differences in Cicero's "On End" compared to the "Tusculan D."

It is important to note that the virtues are referred to as "the virtues", and indicates the commonly understood set of ancient virtues of prudence, justice, temperance, and courage.

Here is a simple article for reference:

---->The Four Cardinal Virtues in Ancient Greece

(Also, about the wall: The inscription has been assigned on epigraphic grounds to the Hadrianic period, 117–138 CE. (Source: Wikipedia)

Perhaps this thread needs to be renamed to: "Using your own brain instead of AI".

Some are some of my own personal reflections (without external aids) on the above text:

• Happiness and pleasure are the same thing.
• The virtues are the means toward happiness/pleasure.
• Pleasure is the end goal of the best mode of life, not virtue.
• The virtues benefit humans, not animals.
• Nature supplies birds with the ability to fly well, and they don't desert this natural ability.
• Humans need the virtues to bring them back to nature.
• Each virtue points toward the understanding of a particular set of desires, and the ability to discern which desires are natural and which are not.

In the inscription on the wall of Oinoanda it says this:

"I shall discuss folly shortly, the virtues and pleasure now.

If, gentlemen, the point at issue between these people and us involved inquiry into «what is the means of happiness?» and they wanted to say «the virtues» (which would actually be true), it would be unnecessary to take any other step than to agree with them about this, without more ado. But since, as I say, the issue is not «what is the means of happiness?» but «what is happiness and what is the ultimate goal of our nature?», I say both now and always, shouting out loudly to all Greeks and non-Greeks, that pleasure is the end of the best mode of life, while the virtues, which are inopportunely messed about by these people (being transferred from the place of the means to that of the end), are in no way an end, but the means to the end.

Let us therefore now state that this is true, making it our starting-point.

Suppose, then, someone were to ask someone, though it is a naive question, «who is it whom these virtues benefit?», obviously the answer will be «man.» The virtues certainly do not make provision for these birds flying past, enabling them to fly well, or for each of the other animals: they do not desert the nature with which they live and by which they have been engendered; rather it is for the sake of this nature that the virtues do everything and exist.

Each (virtue?) therefore ............... means of (?) ... just as if a mother for whatever reasons sees that the possessing nature has been summoned there, it then being necessary to allow the court to asked what each (virtue?) is doing and for whom .................................... [We must show] both which of the desires are natural and which are not; and in general all things that [are included] in the [former category are easily attained] ...."

The inscripion

***

Unfortunately there are lost sections, but it might be a good exercise to summarize what we can...and perhaps bring in other material from PDs, VSs, etc.

(will post more soon)

Welcome to the forum @nkulinka 

You might like these two overviews, by Cassius:

Happy Birthday DerekC !

Quote from Kalosyni

searching out the motives for all choice and avoidance,

I'm thinking now that there is a difference between motives behind desires, and motives for all choice and avoidance.

Desires are impulses and thoughts.

Choice and avoidance is thinking about pros and cons for a specific action.

But the motive for making choices and avoidances is motivated by understanding the need to make good decisions that lead to good outcomes.

The motive behind all desires is to move toward pleasure or to move away from pain. But the list I've been considering (here in this thread) is a big mash-up of causes of desires, desires, and motivations.

Welcome to the forum ontologix

Quote from ontologix

One of my aims will be to rectify outside this forum the millenium old defamation of Epikuros as a hedonist.

Perhaps more specifically...Epicurus was a hedonist, but he was not a profligate.